Tables

Table 1: Descriptive participant data
Factor Mean SD
AoA 11.90 4.07
Current age 22.74 3.43
Proficiency 5.26 0.94
Table 2: Word list
Spanish English French
tiro tipping tir
tema teller terre
talla tacky tasse
quiso penny quitte
queja pass quelle
cama parrot pile
piso kitten pere
pena kennel patte
pato cabbage
Table 3: Descriptive Relative VOT for /k/ per language
Language Segment Relative VOT SD
english k 0.160 0.055
french k 0.148 0.055
spanish k 0.086 0.034
Table 4: Descriptive Relative VOT for /t/ per language
Language Segment Relative VOT SD
english t 0.134 0.046
french t 0.078 0.053
spanish t 0.046 0.021
Table 5: Descriptive Relative VOT for /p/ per language
Language Segment Relative VOT SD
english p 0.109 0.058
french p 0.063 0.042
spanish p 0.041 0.022
Table 6: Descriptive pooled Relative VOT per language
Language Relative VOT SD
english 0.134 0.057
french 0.090 0.060
spanish 0.058 0.033
Table 7: Descriptive pooled Relative VOT per language in monolinguals
language mean sd
french 0.070 0.044
spanish 0.059 0.032
Table 8: Linear Regression of the full data set
  relative vot z
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.21 0.92 – 1.51 <0.001
language [french] -0.66 -0.96 – -0.36 <0.001
language [spanish] -1.27 -1.56 – -0.97 <0.001
text [p] -0.95 -1.25 – -0.65 <0.001
text [t] -0.69 -0.99 – -0.39 <0.001
Random Effects
σ2 0.35
τ00 participant 0.14
τ00 word 0.09
ICC 0.39
N participant 39
N word 26
Observations 949
Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 0.424 / 0.650
Table 9: L2 subset Descriptive pooled Relative VOT per language
Language Relative VOT SD
english 0.130 0.056
french 0.106 0.064
spanish 0.059 0.034
Table 10: Linear Regression of the L2 data subset
  relative vot z
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.14 0.81 – 1.48 <0.001
language [french] -0.34 -0.67 – -0.02 0.038
language [spanish] -1.19 -1.50 – -0.87 <0.001
text [p] -0.96 -1.28 – -0.63 <0.001
text [t] -0.68 -1.01 – -0.36 <0.001
Random Effects
σ2 0.35
τ00 word 0.10
τ00 participant 0.17
ICC 0.43
N participant 23
N word 26
Observations 561
Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 0.398 / 0.659
Table 11: L1 subset Descriptive pooled Relative VOT per language
Language Relative VOT SD
english 0.140 0.058
french 0.066 0.046
spanish 0.057 0.032
Table 12: Linear Regression of the L1 data subset
  relative vot z
Predictors Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 1.31 0.96 – 1.66 <0.001
language [french] -1.13 -1.43 – -0.82 <0.001
language [spanish] -1.39 -1.71 – -1.07 <0.001
text [p] -0.94 -1.23 – -0.65 <0.001
text [t] -0.70 -0.99 – -0.41 <0.001
Random Effects
σ2 0.28
τ00 word 0.07
τ00 participant 0.23
τ11 participant.languagefrench 0.04
τ11 participant.languagespanish 0.10
ρ01 participant.languagefrench -1.00
ρ01 participant.languagespanish -1.00
N participant 16
N word 26
Observations 388
Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 0.657 / NA

Table 13

power subset pairing
100 L1 subset English-Spanish
100 L2 subset English-Spanish
100 Full subset English-Spanish
18 L1 subset French-Spanish
100 L2 subset French-Spanish
80 Full subset French-Spanish
100 L1 subset French-English
45 L2 subset French-English
91 Full subset French-English

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 2: French-English Test of Equivalence of the full dataset. 

## TOST results:
## t-value lower bound: -1.60   p-value lower bound: 0.943
## t-value upper bound: -5.13   p-value upper bound: 0.000001
## degrees of freedom : 75.72
## 
## Equivalence bounds (Cohen's d):
## low eqbound: -0.4 
## high eqbound: 0.4
## 
## Equivalence bounds (raw scores):
## low eqbound: -0.0234 
## high eqbound: 0.0234
## 
## TOST confidence interval:
## lower bound 90% CI: -0.067
## upper bound 90% CI:  -0.022
## 
## NHST confidence interval:
## lower bound 95% CI: -0.071
## upper bound 95% CI:  -0.018
## 
## Equivalence Test Result:
## The equivalence test was non-significant, t(75.72) = -1.595, p = 0.943, given equivalence bounds of -0.0234 and 0.0234 (on a raw scale) and an alpha of 0.05.
## Null Hypothesis Test Result:
## The null hypothesis test was significant, t(75.72) = -3.361, p = 0.00122, given an alpha of 0.05.
## Based on the equivalence test and the null-hypothesis test combined, we can conclude that the observed effect is statistically different from zero and statistically not equivalent to zero.

Figure 3

Figure 4: French-English Test of Equivalence of the L2 dataset. 

## TOST results:
## t-value lower bound: 0.0754  p-value lower bound: 0.470
## t-value upper bound: -3.76   p-value upper bound: 0.0005
## degrees of freedom : 22
## 
## Equivalence bounds (Cohen's dz):
## low eqbound: -0.4 
## high eqbound: 0.4
## 
## Equivalence bounds (raw scores):
## low eqbound: -0.0254 
## high eqbound: 0.0254
## 
## TOST confidence interval:
## lower bound 90% CI: -0.047
## upper bound 90% CI:  -0.002
## 
## NHST confidence interval:
## lower bound 95% CI: -0.052
## upper bound 95% CI:  0.003
## 
## Equivalence Test Result:
## The equivalence test was non-significant, t(22) = 0.0754, p = 0.470, given equivalence bounds of -0.0254 and 0.0254 (on a raw scale) and an alpha of 0.05.
## Null Hypothesis Test Result:
## The null hypothesis test was non-significant, t(22) = -1.843, p = 0.0788, given an alpha of 0.05.
## Based on the equivalence test and the null-hypothesis test combined, we can conclude that the observed effect is statistically not different from zero and statistically not equivalent to zero.

Figure 5

Figure 6: French-Spanish Test of Equivalence of the L1 dataset. 

## TOST results:
## t-value lower bound: 2.43    p-value lower bound: 0.014
## t-value upper bound: -0.773  p-value upper bound: 0.226
## degrees of freedom : 15
## 
## Equivalence bounds (Cohen's dz):
## low eqbound: -0.4 
## high eqbound: 0.4
## 
## Equivalence bounds (raw scores):
## low eqbound: -0.0173 
## high eqbound: 0.0173
## 
## TOST confidence interval:
## lower bound 90% CI: -0.01
## upper bound 90% CI:  0.028
## 
## NHST confidence interval:
## lower bound 95% CI: -0.014
## upper bound 95% CI:  0.032
## 
## Equivalence Test Result:
## The equivalence test was non-significant, t(15) = -0.773, p = 0.226, given equivalence bounds of -0.0173 and 0.0173 (on a raw scale) and an alpha of 0.05.
## Null Hypothesis Test Result:
## The null hypothesis test was non-significant, t(15) = 0.827, p = 0.421, given an alpha of 0.05.
## Based on the equivalence test and the null-hypothesis test combined, we can conclude that the observed effect is statistically not different from zero and statistically not equivalent to zero.

Figure 7